Jack Smith has filed his response to the gag order brief brought by Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. This comes after Judge Tanya Chuin imposed a limited gag order on Trump, restricting certain statements, especially those that threaten people. Trump, who is appealing this order, faces legal challenges in the DC election interference case.

In the response filed with the DC Circuit, Jack Smith, part of the special counsel’s office, submitted a 67-page legal brief. The central question posed to the court is whether Judge Chuin permissibly issued an order under local criminal rule 57.7 subdivision C, prohibiting parties and their counsel from making extrajudicial statements targeting specific trial participants. The order, however, allows Trump to make statements criticizing the government, asserting his innocence, or criticizing political rivals.

The brief outlines Trump’s persistent use of social media to make inflammatory comments, leading to threats and harassment directed at trial participants, witnesses, and officials. Despite admonitions from the court, Trump continued making statements that escalated tensions. The filing emphasizes the importance of balancing the First Amendment with the need for a fair trial and preventing a carnival atmosphere of unchecked publicity.

The gag order, currently on pause as litigation continues, aims to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings. The trial is set to begin on March 4th, with jury selection starting on February 9th. Despite Trump’s attempts to delay the trial, Judge Chuin has consistently denied such requests, leading to heightened rhetoric from the former president.

The legal brief argues that Judge Chuin had the authority to issue the gag order based on the substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the trial. Smith contends that Trump’s history of using social media to disparage individuals and implicitly encourage violence justifies the restrictions to ensure a fair trial.

While the outcome remains uncertain, the brief provides a comprehensive argument for upholding the limited gag order, emphasizing the immediate risk of witness intimidation and harassment posed by Trump’s statements. The Supreme Court may ultimately decide on the appeal, raising questions about the potential impact of their stance on Trump’s legal challenges.